Allan v The Migration Institute of Australia Limited [2012] NSWSC 42

Allan v The Migration Institute of Australia Limited [2012] NSWSC 42

The defendants' existing particulars did not adequately disclose the basis of the common law fair comment defence, the public interest and proper material for honest opinion, the substantial truth and qualified privilege aspects of the material relied upon, or the nature and reasonableness of the qualified privilege defences. The plaintiff was entitled to further particulars on those matters so that the way the defences were put could be understood before trial. However, the defendants were not required to provide names and addresses of recipients, to particularise proper material separately for each imputation, to identify parts of the article composed by Ms Horder, or to provide further...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Concerning Adequacy of Particulars of Defences
Outcome
Defendants ordered to provide further particulars of the defence; plaintiff substantially successful on the application.
Legal Topics
['honest Opinion' 'fair Comment' 'qualified Privilege' 'triviality' 'particulars of Defence']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['honest Opinion' 'fair Comment' 'qualified Privilege' 'triviality' 'particulars of Defence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Concerning Adequacy of Particulars of Defences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants were required to provide further particulars of a common law fair comment defence.' 'Whether the defendants had adequately identified the statutory honest opinion defences relied upon under s 31 of the Defamation Act 2005.' 'Whether the defendants had adequately particularised proper material for honest opinion and fair comment, including public interest, substantial truth and qualified privilege aspects.' 'Whether the defendants were required to identify the recipients of the publication by name and address.' 'Whether the defendants had adequately particularised statutory and common law qualified privilege defences.' 'Whether further particulars were required for the defence of triviality.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' existing particulars did not adequately disclose the basis of the common law fair comment defence, the public interest and proper material for honest opinion, the substantial truth and qualified privilege aspects of the material relied upon, or the nature and reasonableness of the qualified privilege defences. The plaintiff was entitled to further particulars on those matters so that the way the defences were put could be understood before trial. However, the defendants were not required to provide names and addresses of recipients, to particularise proper material separately for each imputation, to identify parts of the article composed by Ms Horder, or to provide further...

Court Disposition

Defendants ordered to provide further particulars of the defence; plaintiff substantially successful on the application.

Orders

  • ['The defendants are ordered to provide further particulars of the defence in accordance with the reasons within 14 days.' "The defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application unless the defendants notify the Court within 14 days that they wish to be heard on that issue."]